When I first discovered these I had fun doing and logging a few of them. But now I no longer have interest in doing any more of these, especially as more and more get published. The more published, the less interested in them I become. They somehow seem pointless to me (as well as locationless ). Does anyone else feel this way about Locationless caches, or am I alone?

Yay, pleased to see I have topped the list of finders for July...and NOT one of them locationless !

I rarely log them, partly as I can't be bothered checking what new ones have been added on a regular basis. I also won't generally log them more than once per locationless, though I guess the state survey markers would be a quick way to boost my find count.

Goldenwattle, you said it almost exactly the way I think it. I no longer bother, either, and when one is publsihed, I think, "Oh, it's just a locationless", and delete from my e-mail. I think the only locationless we still like to chase is the George and Annis Bills horse troughs. I am not sure if Steve still logs them when he finds them or not.

I love love love them !! And this comes after about 12 months of thinking like you do - what's the point? As C@W said, they are the thing that keeps me caching when I don't have the opportunity, or availability of physical caches, to find others. To the point where I have a backlog of just under 100 locationless caches to log because I find them everywhere!!! In fact I will specifically target certain types of locationless in the same way as you would trigs or trads and it opens up the caching world dramatically. #horrayforGCA

But when I first started I was completely overwhelmed by the alternatives, and in some respects still am, as it's tough to find what you're going for. So I have a mental summary of the types that are manageable for me and stick with those mainly. Happy to suggest some options for inspiration if you're short of ideas.

I find the number of 'locationless' caches that actually require you to be in a specific area frustrating. It would be great if they had at least their state attributed to them so I could filter those out.

Locationless cache shouldn't be restricted to a location but without rules they can be anything the owner likes. If we put a state on them, they end up in the state searches which is not going to make others happy. Thanks for the feedback, this can go on a list of how to improve locationless caches.

I find the number of 'locationless' caches that actually require you to be in a specific area frustrating. It would be great if they had at least their state attributed to them so I could filter those out.

Yeah, some people don't get the difference between locationless and virtual cache types.

It's easy really:Virtual: Usually tied to a single locationLocationless: anywhere and everywhere.

The organisation of locationless caches has come up before. Do you have any suggestions as how they can be organised to make their usability any better?

Other than being able to search within the body of the description (as not all cache names give a clear idea of what you'd be looking for), maybe some form of categorisation or grouping? Perhaps something like "markers, signs and notices", "structures", "alpha and numeric games", "animals", "challenges", "beach and water", etc..... or use tags and pull them out based on their tags. If you can view them in categories they may seem less overwhelming.

The organisation of locationless caches has come up before. Do you have any suggestions as how they can be organised to make their usability any better?

Other than being able to search within the body of the description (as not all cache names give a clear idea of what you'd be looking for), maybe some form of categorisation or grouping? Perhaps something like "markers, signs and notices", "structures", "alpha and numeric games", "animals", "challenges", "beach and water", etc..... or use tags and pull them out based on their tags. If you can view them in categories they may seem less overwhelming.

I'm one of those out of the way cachers that likes the idea of being able to do locationles caches, however, when I find something I recall can be "found", I can't find it again because a lot of the names are confusing. I have a heap of locationless photos on my phone that have never made it beyond. I do write lists but promptly lose them.

I'm not bagging them as a bad idea, they are similar to Waymarking on Groundspeak - and I don't know how that is going, I had several waymarks published back in Adelaide but it is a long time since I have had a notification that someone has found one. Though the waymarks required you to actually add a location of something you found that matched so others could find it. Locationless are a bit different in that the CO can require people to not refind the same one such as water tanks.

Some are now redundant, there is one that requires people to find buses in Sydney that say this is bus number x of 1000 added by the State Government. As far as I can tell all those notices on the back of the buses are now covered by advertising so is no longer findable. But to be useful you need to keep up on what they are. I take photos of anything unusual just in case I get a chance to check the list and see if it matches a locationless if I can be bothered later.

Each to their own, some people will find and some people will ignore. I don't see a real problem with them - just as I choose to generally ignore Challenge caches on Groundspeak I can ignore locationless here if I want.